Mark Butler (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present a chart showing the proposed parliamentary sittings for 2024. Copies have been placed on the table, and I ask leave of the House to move that the proposed parliamentary sittings be agreed to.

Leave granted.

I move:

That the proposed parliamentary sittings for 2024 be agreed to.

This sitting pattern has been debated and adopted without dissent in the other place. It provides for 17 weeks of sitting for this House next year and 14 weeks, exclusive of estimates, in the other place. This is consistent with the average number of sitting weeks for each chamber since 2007, excluding in election years. This is very much business as usual. I make the point that we are tabling this in mid-October. We've been able to put together a sitting pattern that's been adopted without dissent in the other place very early in the latter part of 2023 so that members are able to have as much time as possible to plan their 2024. I commend the motion to the House.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move an amendment to the motion:

That the following words be added:

"and that the House shall meet on Monday, 14 October 2024, Tuesday, 15 October 2024, Wednesday, 16 October 2024 and Thursday, 17 October 2024."

In moving this amendment, the opposition is making it very clear that it has some real concerns about the government's schedule for next year because it's very light on.

The Deputy Leader of the House and the member for Kingsford Smith are interjecting in a way which isn't consistent with the view they held only a matter of 18 months to two years ago, when they sat on these benches.

I well remember sitting here when the now Leader of the House, the former Manager of Opposition Business, stood with feigned indignation—outrage—ranting and raving about previous schedules put forward by the then coalition government. I'm sorry the Leader of the House isn't here today to participate in the debate. I understand he is unwell, and I wish him well in his recovery; he is a good man. But I cannot forget those moments when he was on this side of the House and he lectured, cajoled and ranted about the previous government's arrangements of up to 18 weeks in the sitting schedule, saying it was not enough for him. Now he has come forward with a plan that appears to have 16 weeks for sitting, which is very light on compared to previous years. What has happened to the legislative agenda of those opposite? Is it so light on that they would put forward this schedule for 2024, notwithstanding that they cancelled next week's sitting?

The member for Kingsford Smith is suggesting I'm filibustering. I heard him deliver a speech a moment ago, and I have never heard him pronounce so many syllables so carefully and so spread out, so he was filibustering himself. I take his interjection that I may be filibustering at this moment. But I will say this: we are here to talk about this sitting schedule, and I believe it is unprecedented in my time here that the government of the day would cancel a sitting week—next week—purely because the Prime Minister does not want to be here to answer questions on issues like the Voice. He does not want to be here, but the parliament can sit without the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister does not want to be here because he does not want us to ask any questions of the government. He does not want his ministers to be exposed to more questions on a range of topics because he is simply very, very nervous about leaving his colleagues unattended without him being on watch. He does not want them to be here unattended, meeting and talking about his appalling judgement. His decision to divide Australians on his failed voice proposal showed his appalling judgement. The Prime Ministers simply does not want to have his colleagues to have an opportunity to gather without him there to enforce discipline, shall I say.

In moving this amendment to the motion today, I urge those opposite to consider carefully the option being put forward by this side of the House. I urge them to support our amendment.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Government Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to second the amendment. Let me start by saying that it is frankly quite disappointing that the Deputy Leader of the House gave no notice of this being brought on at this time. I think it is regrettable and raises a justified suspicion that what the government is trying to do is to sneak through something they know is pretty shameful. This timetable is pretty shameful. This timetable is a disgrace, and you know it's a disgrace. The fact is that to propose a timetable of only 17 weeks shows a contempt for the Australian people and a contempt for the role of this parliament in holding to account executive government. This is a pattern we have seen repeated time after time by the Albanese Labor government. In mid-2022, shortly after coming to government, the Prime Minister proposed a sitting timetable for 2022 which saw the parliament sit for only 40 days—40 days was the sitting timetable that was moved and adopted by the parliament on the instigation of this weak, incompetent Prime Minister who's determined to avoid and minimise parliamentary scrutiny. It was 40 days in 2022, compared to 67 days in 2021 and 58 days in 2020.

But, of course, he didn't stop there. He wasted no time in cancelling a week of sittings just a couple of months later, in response to the sad death of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. And next week is supposed to be a parliamentary sitting week. It was in the parliamentary timetable that was adopted by this parliament at the end of last year on the motion of the Leader of the House. But, just a few weeks ago, this Prime Minister peremptorily cancelled sitting for next week, again citing overseas obligations as his excuse for doing so. We know that the real reason was that the last time he wasn't here and the member for Corio was in the chair—the Deputy Prime Minister put on his big boy pants and was in the chair—it didn't go very well. It didn't go very well at all. It was all very embarrassing and very messy, and it was yet another reminder to this Prime Minister that he's not very keen on parliamentary accountability and scrutiny. He doesn't actually like making himself accountable to this parliament. He doesn't actually like being on the receiving end of questions. He doesn't actually like having to explain to the elected representatives of the people of Australia what his government is doing, and that is why we are seeing a clear pattern from this Prime Minister of trying to reduce, at every opportunity, the number of days that this parliament sits.

He produced a timetable for 2022 which was ridiculously light on—only 40 sitting days. He then seized an opportunity to cut a week of sitting time just a couple of months later. Just a month or so ago he seized another opportunity to cut a week of sitting time. The parliament is supposed to be sitting from next Monday to next Thursday, according to the sitting timetable that this House adopted last year for 2023. But then, of course, he trashed that. He said: 'I don't want the parliament to be sitting next week. I'm travelling; I'll use that as an excuse!' Let's have a look at how that pattern has been replicated in this joke of a sitting timetable which has been put before the parliament today and which the Deputy Leader of the House has just tried to sneak through, without giving appropriate notice to this side to the House. Trying to get this through without people realising what was going on is deeply dodgy. This is deeply dodgy.

What we see in this sitting timetable is: 4 March, ASEAN; 5 March, ASEAN; and 6 March, ASEAN. What does that mean? Does that mean the parliament is all going to ASEAN? No, it doesn't. What it means is that it's this Prime Minister's excuse. He's leapt on it desperately: 'I'm going to use some international travel obligations as another excuse to minimise the amount of time that this parliament sits!' This is showing contempt for the Australian people. It is showing contempt for the role of this parliament as a chamber which carries out its responsibility to hold this government to account, to subject it to the normal processes of parliamentary scrutiny. And, my goodness, isn't there so much to scrutinise under this hopeless, inept and incompetent government?

But let's just remind ourselves of the sharp contrast between what this Prime Minister used to say when he was in opposition and what he's actually doing now. In 2018 he had this to say about a sitting timetable that had been proposed, concluding in a frenzy of indignation:

… it is contemptuous of the democratic will of the people. It's contemptuous of this parliament as an institution. It is contemptuous of the rights of members of this House of Representatives and of senators to actually do the jobs that they are elected to do. And would we just go along with a timetable such as this?

Now the Prime Minister of this government insults this House, insults the people of Australia and insults parliamentarians who have a job to do, who are elected to come here and to subject this government to scrutiny, to ask questions during question time, to meet in parliamentary committees and to speak up for their constituents. These are the fundamental roles of parliamentarians and the fundamental job of this House. And yet, what we see from this Prime Minister is that he wants us to sign on to a parliamentary timetable which has only 17 sitting weeks. If you go back to Federation, the average number of sitting weeks has been 20. Seventeen weeks is well under the normal process and the normal meeting times for parliament to come together.

You have to ask: Why is this Prime Minister so afraid to front up to parliament? Why is he seizing every opportunity and every threadbare excuse to cancel scheduled sitting weeks and to minimise the number of weeks that the parliament sits? Why has he demonstrated a track record in this government of consistently seeking to minimise the amount of time that this parliament comes together?

Remember that this was a prime minister who, when he was in opposition, said he was going to do politics differently. He promised a new commitment to transparency and accountability. He is certainly doing it differently. What he's doing is transparently and nakedly taking every opportunity to avoid being subject to the normal processes of parliamentary scrutiny, and he's doing it in the most crude and base way possible, which is by seeking to have as few days as possible for this parliament to meet. It is a disgrace that this sitting timetable has been proposed, it is a disgrace that this government is trying to sneak it through without proper consultation or notification to the opposition, and it is a disgrace that this government is showing contempt for elected parliamentarians and for the people of Australia, who send us here to do a job on their behalf.

Aaron Violi (Casey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I commend the member for Bradfield for that contribution. We sit here today with another example of this out-of-touch Prime Minister saying many things before the election and then, when he wins government, not delivering on those. His actions always speak louder than his words.

The reality is the Australian people are struggling right now. Cost of living is the biggest issue that Australians are facing. We, on this side, know that. Those opposite clearly do not—through their words and their actions. The significant issues are 11 interest rate rises since this Labor government came to power, inflation going through the roof and continuing to stay high, and petrol and power prices being out of control. This Prime Minister's answer to the challenges the Australian people face is to propose 64 days of sitting next year. There are 365 days in a year, and this Prime Minister proposes 64 days, and that's assuming that he doesn't cancel any days next year. As the member for Bradfield rightly pointed out, we were supposed to be sitting next week to address the challenges that the people of Australia are facing, but the Prime Minister decided that without him here—because he doesn't trust the Deputy Prime Minister—the government is not sitting next week. So we've got 64 days next year as a best-case scenario. History says that this Prime Minister will cancel and cut, as the member for Gippsland said. I'm not a big betting man, but, if I were going to bet, I'd be bettering there will be more cuts next year.

The reason is that this Prime Minister not only has the wrong priorities for the Australian people; he has no priorities for the Australian people. He has no agenda and he has no plan to solve the challenges that our community is facing. We see that every day in question time, whether it's a question from the opposition or even a dixer from his own side. He's got three to four talking points that he has repeated for 18 months, and then he goes from his three to four talking points to talk about the opposition. He spends more time in question time talking about the opposition than he does about his plans, what he's delivered and, most importantly, what he can do to help the Australian people who are struggling right now.

It's not that surprising that the Prime Minister talks a lot about the opposition. When you look at his background and his history, you see it's his most natural habitat. It's what this Prime Minister knows. He's been in this parliament for 27 years, so you would think he knows it well, he likes it and he would want to sit for a long time. But in those 27 years he spent two decades—20 years—in opposition, so he knows opposition well. He knows how to criticise the other side. He's an expert in opposition, and the Australian people have worked that out. They have seen that this Prime Minister is an expert in opposition. I will pay attention today, as I always do, to his answers and even the MPI, when those on the government back benches get their talking points, because we all know it's the same talking points that they all deliver. It's quite fun to listen to them. Of every talking point from the back bench in an MPI, coming from the Prime Minister and the Treasury, 90 per cent talk about the opposition. They're an opposition in waiting. It's what they know. It's what they do well.

It's not surprising that this Prime Minister wants to avoid scrutiny; he's not across the detail of any portfolio, of any opposition. We had the farce this week where he was asked by the Shadow Treasurer a question about the economy and he had to get a note passed to him from the Treasurer. He had to get a note passed to him about the economy. It is not that surprising, though, because we all know that he didn't know the cash rate. He didn't know the unemployment rate

But you've got to look not just at what he says, because he says a lot, promises a lot, doesn't deliver it and can't answer the basic questions; this is a prime minister that has not received one briefing from the Treasury secretary, the most senior public servant for the economy, in a cost-of-living crisis. There has been not one briefing from Steven Kennedy, and that was admitted in Senate estimates. But in his time as Prime Minister he has spent at least three days at the Australian Open tennis.

So let's put this into perspective as Australians are struggling. We are in a cost-of-living crisis. The economy is the major issue that we're hearing about from our communities. This Prime Minister has spent more time at the Australian Open tennis than he has getting a briefing from the most senior economics adviser in the Public Service. He is not across the detail and does not want to be across the detail, He wants to enjoy the trappings of the office without the scrutiny. The frustration of this is that it is the Australian people who are struggling. We are now looking at petrol prices well over $2 in my community and in every community across the country.

Now, this Prime Minister, when he was in opposition, was very happy to criticise then Prime Minister Morrison when petrol prices were at $1.79. He was looking for solutions from the Prime Minister at that time. At $1.79, he was happy to criticise the then prime minister. He was happy to criticise the then Prime Minister at $1.79. It's over $2 a litre today and we hear nothing from this Prime Minister—crickets! He has no solutions for the Australian people.

Joanne Ryan (Lalor, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's not the MPI!

Aaron Violi (Casey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Those on that side will throw barbs, which they're good at, but let's look at what the former government did when petrol hit over $2. They acted, cutting the excise in half and giving cost-of-living relief to the Australian people. That's what we're seeing from this Prime Minister: he has no answers to the challenges we have, which is why he wants to avoid scrutiny. It is why he is suggesting that we only sit in this House for 64 days next year. The Australian people would expect—

A government member interjecti ng—

I do note that it's standard that we don't sit in January. We aren't sitting for the Australian Open, so the PM will be happy about that! I'm not sure when the NRL grand final is, but I'm sure he'll make sure he has that week off in case his Rabbitohs make the NRL final. I'm sure he'll want to be there!

That's the thing about this Prime Minister: he isn't across the detail. He doesn't even have an agenda or any priorities; he is hiding from scrutiny. As the member for Bradfield rightly pointed out, he is very happy to criticise others when he's in opposition but now that he has the opportunity to make a difference and to solve the challenges that the Australian people are facing, he can't. There are no solutions, nothing—

An opposition member: No ability!

No ability and no detail. The sad part about it is that it's the Australian people who are going to pay the price for this out-of-touch and incompetent Prime Minister.

Mark Butler (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We will not be supporting this amendment, and I want to correct the record on a couple of counts. Firstly, let's be clear: this sitting schedule has been out there for some time now. As I said, it was adopted without dissent in the Senate. And, to the Manager of Opposition Business's suggestion that we have come in here without any notice: he knows full well that his office was informed at around 11:30 that we would seek to bring this on after the ministerial statement about the Ashton review.

As to the substance of the amendment: the Manager of Opposition Business has taken us back to Federation for an average of sitting times, a time when people used to get on a steamship from Perth and on the train from everywhere else, uprooting their entire lives to sit in this place for six or eight weeks at a time

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But he was accurate!

Mark Butler (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He may well be accurate; I haven't gone back to 1901. What I have done is go back to 2007—a period of 16 years or so, the majority of which saw those opposite government and not the Labor Party—and the average sitting weeks for a non-election year, which 2024 will be, was 17 weeks for the House of Representatives and 14 weeks for the Senate. That is exactly what is contained in this sitting schedule. And I'll say further that the final non-COVID non-election sitting year for the former coalition government, 2018, had—wait for it—17 weeks of sittings for the House of Representatives!

We have important legislation to get on with here—the Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023. This has been debated in the Senate and adopted without dissent. The opposition and the crossbench have had notice of the government's intention here, so I move:

That the question be now put.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the question be now put.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question before the House is that the amendment be agreed to.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is the motion be agreed to.